1 / 40

On the Edge of an Existential Abyss

On the Edge of an Existential Abyss. A Terror Management Perspective on Ethnopolitical Violence. Gilad Hirschberger New School of Psychology Interdisciplinary Center. “ It is in the sphere of terrorism and counter-terrorism that fear’s most harmful manifestations flourish ”.

gerodi
Download Presentation

On the Edge of an Existential Abyss

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. On the Edge of an Existential Abyss A Terror Management Perspective on Ethnopolitical Violence Gilad Hirschberger New School of Psychology Interdisciplinary Center

  2. “It is in the sphere of terrorism and counter-terrorism that fear’s most harmful manifestations flourish” Irene Kahn, Amnesty International

  3. Terror Management Theory Self-Preservation Instinct Cognitive Complexity Potential for Debilitating Terror CWV Self-Esteem

  4. Terror Management Dynamics Symbolic Defenses Threshold Preconscious Death Anxiety

  5. Mortality Salience and Worldview Defenses Symbolic Defenses Threshold Preconscious Death Anxiety MS Prime

  6. Mortality Salience Induces Support of Violence • Conservative Americans support using extreme violence (Pyszczynski et al., 2006). • Iranian and British participants express willingness to sacrifice their life for a cause (Pyszczynski et al., 2006; Routledge & Arndt, 2008). • Right-wing Israeli participants condone violent resistance to the disengagement from Gaza (Hirschberger & Ein-Dor, 2006).

  7. Does MS Always Promote Violent Solutions to Conflict? • Three preconditions: • Perceived consensus • Justice • Inevitability of violence

  8. Consensus

  9. Consensus: An Outcome and Precondition • MS led Americans to support President Bush and the War Against Iraq (Landau et al., 2004) • MS led Iranians to support suicidal terrorism, but only when they believed there was consensus for such action (Abdollahi et al., in press; Pyszczynski et al., 2006)

  10. The Justice Motivation

  11. Rationality, Revenge and Justice • The cognitive-rational debate “War is not a mere act of policy but a true political instrument, a continuation of political activity by other means” Clausewitz, 1832 War is an irrational and useless effort Voltaire, 1959

  12. Study 1: Manipulating Justice • A description of a deadly Qassam attack on Sderot • Utility: “A military invasion now will significantly reduce the likelihood of future attacks” • Justice: “A military invasion now will not have an effect on future attacks, but will restore justice.” • Futility of Violence: “A military invasion now will only increase attacks against us.”

  13. Support of Military Action

  14. Study 2: Measuring Justice, Utility, & Peace • Construction of JUPI scales • MS/Pain • Description of attack on Sderot • Mild outcome • Severe outcome

  15. The Impact of MS on Justice Motivations

  16. Study 3: Pitting Justice against Utility • Rational/emotional decision making prime • MS/Pain • Terrorist attack scenario • Expert opinion – mild response • Decision: mild response or full scale attack? • DV: Level of confidence

  17. Rational Processing Emotional Processing

  18. Conclusions • Both justice and utility motivations are activated when death is salient • Justice motivations are preferred over utility motivations when death is salient, especially when in an emotional processing state • When violence is counter-productive or when one is in a rational processing state MS reduces violent motivations

  19. Inevitability of Violence

  20. Study 1: Support for a Pre-Emptive Nuclear Strike Hirschberger, Pyszczynski, & Ein-Dor, 2009, PSPB

  21. Escalation Scenario “The Iranian leadership has been escalating their rhetoric on the need to destroy Israel, and the world is showing increasing concern about the development of the Iranian nuclear program. According to experts on the matter, Iran will be able to produce nuclear weapons within one to three years. Moreover, the Iranian government adamantly refuses to consider any of the proposals of the international community and will not allow any inspections of its nuclear facilities.”

  22. De-escalation Scenario “The Iranian leadership has changed its tone and has recently declared that Israel will be able to exist in the region if it recognizes the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people, and respects the culture and values of the Muslim majority in the region. Moreover, Iran has started to cooperate with the UN agency for nuclear energy and it is considering several proposals that may satisfy international concerns on weapons development, including the presence of UN inspectors.”

  23. Support of Preemptive Strike

  24. Study 2: Personal Vulnerability • Replication of Study 1 • Half of the participants were instructed to consider the personal ramifications of a pre-emptive strike on Iran

  25. Support of Preemptive Strike

  26. Study 3: Previous War Exposure • Lebanon War 2006 • Participants who lived in the North • Participants not directly exposed to violence • Escalation and De-escalation scenarios

  27. Support of Violence as a Function of Exposure to War North South

  28. Conclusions • MS leads to preference for violent solutions • However, actual concrete threats take precedence over symbolic threats

  29. Common Humanity

  30. Common Humanity and the Holocaust • Four prime conditions: • Death • Pain • Holocaust – A crime against the Jewish people • Holocaust – A crime against Humanity • DV: Aggression against Palestinians

  31. Support of Violence

  32. Superordinate Threat and Common Humanity • Focusing on a greater threat • Redefining group boundaries • Placing local conflict in perspective

  33. Study 1: Support for Diplomacy over Violence • 109 American participants • Common catastrophe – global warming • Local catastrophe – San Francisco earthquake • MS/Pain procedure • DV: Support for Diplomacy

  34. Study 1: Results

  35. Study 2: Support for War • 56 American participants • Common catastrophe – global warming • Local catastrophe – Flooding in China • MS/Uncertainty procedure • DV: Support for war on Iran

  36. Study 2: Results

  37. Study 3: Support for Peace and Coexistence • 100 Muslim Palestinian citizens of Israel studied during the war on Gaza • Common catastrophe – global warming • Local catastrophe – Earthquake in Israel • MS/Pain procedure • DV: Support for peace and coexistence “As difficult as it is, we need to find a way to live in peace with the Jews” • Common humanity orientation “All people are linked to each other in a shared human bond”

  38. Study 3: Support for Peace and Coexistence

  39. General Conclusions • MS leads to support of violent solutions to conflict when: • Perceived consensus is high • Violence can be justified • War seems imminent and inevitable • MS induces non-violent motivations when: • Violence can be averted • Personal vulnerability is high • People are induced to think rationally • Perceptions of intergroup boundaries are manipulated

  40. Tsachi Ein-Dor Rania el Masri Dan Shaham Merav Regev Keren Arias Bental Sofia Yakir Matt Motyl Zach Rothschild Kenneth Vail Thank You! Tom Pyszczynski

More Related